muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Oct 9, 2018 2:39:54 GMT
No it's not. The seeing of inherent emptiness of all 'things' happens via 'a transcendent view.' Things still appear, but the previous substance assigned to them, is seen through. There are no things!  |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Oct 9, 2018 2:44:21 GMT
A transcendent view of "things" is an oxymoron. They're certainly seen differently, but a thing is .. you know .. a thing. No it's not. The seeing of inherent emptiness of all 'things' happens via 'a transcendent view.' Things still appear, but the previous substance assigned to them, is seen through.  "things" - in the general totality- sure do look different after realizing emptiness and there's woo-woo experiences that can shed new light on specific things (as in objects) as well. So I'd say any "transcendent view" of an apple or a pretty person or a mountain or a diamond or a cat is about a process. You know .. an experience. |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Oct 9, 2018 2:53:32 GMT
Nah, that's a stretch. I'm not arguing for the actuality of personal causation, only it's appearance. I'm confused. I actually completely agreed that that influence indeed does 'appear to be.' You asked; "how is it that it's not possible for you to influence the interests that arise to you?" And I replied: "Indeed, there can be an experience of working with, shaping, directing desire/interest, intent, but the transcendent view means seeing through all that...seeing all that is just an empty appearance. Bottom line, the nature of desire/interest is such that it's just not directly caused by something happening within experience. (That said, we can say there are all sorts of 'correlations' that could be pointed out..but that's entirely different)." We're in agreement, aren't we? I don't go so far as to assassinate causation, and I think the disagreement is deeper than just semantics or word lawyering. Sure, we can say that 'causation' is indeed a very compelling appearance within experience and thus, experientially speaking, it's valid to say and engage with the idea that this causes that. The transcendent view though reveals cause and effect to be mere appearances. I have no argument with any of that, but important to see, you still don't 'actually' have personal control over whether an interest to understand such things as why we desire what we desire, will arise of not. The dream continues, the game goes on, and the recurring patterns that appear to make up the game's "rules" persist. No, I don't have any illusion about individual doership, but in terms of unique perspective, and the appearance of interests, these are not beyond my personal influence once I become more deeply conscious of the relative causes of those interests. Some people might start ignoring time after they see it for what it is. For most of my life I've tended to lose track of it.  It is what it is, and once we start talking about appearances we're talking about processes. "Creation" isn't timeless, and influencing our own interests through inward attention is all about "creation", and very much related to this idea of "LOA". |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Oct 9, 2018 2:57:58 GMT
Absolutely, let's look at the practical experience. I don't care much about what science thinks, cuz I've caught it with it's pants down once too often.Is there a pleasure producing drug that is not addictive or a discomfort producing drug that is?  ...that really is the perfect way to put it.  You really wanna' see Al's ass that bad?? 
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Oct 9, 2018 2:59:59 GMT
...that really is the perfect way to put it. Science clearly has such exhibitionist tendencies. That's why there are so many science exhibitions. joke!  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 9, 2018 4:36:25 GMT
No it's not. The seeing of inherent emptiness of all 'things' happens via 'a transcendent view.' Things still appear, but the previous substance assigned to them, is seen through. "things" - in the general totality- sure do look different after realizing emptiness and there's woo-woo experiences that can shed new light on specific things (as in objects) as well. So I'd say any "transcendent view" of an apple or a pretty person or a mountain or a diamond or a cat is about a process. You know .. an experience. I don't see things or 'thingness' in general actually 'looking' different, but for sure, seeing the inherent emptiness changes the relationship with all materiality. I don't see any transcendent view as being about a process, or an experience. Rather, a transcendent view is one that 'sees past'....realization happens via a transcendent view. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 9, 2018 4:44:59 GMT
I'm confused. I actually completely agreed that that influence indeed does 'appear to be.' You asked; "how is it that it's not possible for you to influence the interests that arise to you?" And I replied: "Indeed, there can be an experience of working with, shaping, directing desire/interest, intent, but the transcendent view means seeing through all that...seeing all that is just an empty appearance. Bottom line, the nature of desire/interest is such that it's just not directly caused by something happening within experience. (That said, we can say there are all sorts of 'correlations' that could be pointed out..but that's entirely different)." We're in agreement, aren't we? I don't go so far as to assassinate causation, and I think the disagreement is deeper than just semantics or word lawyering. Sure, we can say that 'causation' is indeed a very compelling appearance within experience and thus, experientially speaking, it's valid to say and engage with the idea that this causes that. The transcendent view though reveals cause and effect to be mere appearances. I have no argument with any of that, but important to see, you still don't 'actually' have personal control over whether an interest to understand such things as why we desire what we desire, will arise of not. The dream continues, the game goes on, and the recurring patterns that appear to make up the game's "rules" persist. No, I don't have any illusion about individual doership, but in terms of unique perspective, and the appearance of interests, these are not beyond my personal influence once I become more deeply conscious of the relative causes of those interests. Some people might start ignoring time after they see it for what it is. For most of my life I've tended to lose track of it. It is what it is, and once we start talking about appearances we're talking about processes. "Creation" isn't timeless, and influencing our own interests through inward attention is all about "creation", and very much related to this idea of "LOA". I'm having trouble following your responses and how they relate to what I said. Will simply say; "Causation" is only ever an appearance. It's compelling as hell and can be engaged with as an experience, absent buying into it as something more than an experience. Same with 'rules', however persistent they may appear to be. If we're talking about supposed laws that govern creation, we are talking about the experiential and not Truth. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 9, 2018 4:45:38 GMT
...that really is the perfect way to put it. You really wanna' see Al's ass that bad?? Oh my.....  |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969 
|
Post by Enigma on Oct 9, 2018 14:23:26 GMT
Isn't it? .. from Reddit: "deciding to be a parent is like agreeing to take care of someone who's always drunk for 13 years, always hungover for the next five, and then paying for the four years of rehab that follow". Ohhh, eggselant meataphor. |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Oct 12, 2018 5:35:57 GMT
"things" - in the general totality- sure do look different after realizing emptiness and there's woo-woo experiences that can shed new light on specific things (as in objects) as well. So I'd say any "transcendent view" of an apple or a pretty person or a mountain or a diamond or a cat is about a process. You know .. an experience. I don't see things or 'thingness' in general actually 'looking' different, but for sure, seeing the inherent emptiness changes the relationship with all materiality. I don't see any transcendent view as being about a process, or an experience. Rather, a transcendent view is one that 'sees past'....realization happens via a transcendent view. Well, I've got no reaction to the first sentence, but "transcendent view" suggests an elevated perspective, and I might relate that to something temporary, but to speak of a "realized state" seems to me to reify the myth of an enlightened superpeep. |
|
"things" - in the general totality- sure do look different after realizing emptiness and there's woo-woo experiences that can shed new light on specific things (as in objects) as well. So I'd say any "transcendent view" of an apple or a pretty person or a mountain or a diamond or a cat is about a process. You know .. an experience. 
It is what it is, and once we start talking about appearances we're talking about processes. "Creation" isn't timeless, and influencing our own interests through inward attention is all about "creation", and very much related to this idea of "LOA". 
